Noting that this user has still been giving problematic feedback on draft threads with no previous replies without telling the author to seek feedback from other more experienced critics/authors which has resulted in three articles being posted to the mainsite then deleted.

This also resulted in the article being posted to the mainsite and subsequently deleted.

In another thread where they left vague feedback, which Zyn corrected, the original poster of the forum commented that they were going to post the draft on the mainsite. At which point I stepped in and offered counter critique and advised against, as evidenced here: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1980686/my-first-scp#post-2685530

I've sent Jack another PM about their excessively positive feedback, and this is their latest post:

I reviewed your new draft & it looks perfectly fine, however, you should usually get at least 2 peoples opinions before posting. On the other hand, that's not a requirement, so feel free to post it when you feel it's ready.

Kind of missing the point. So I made a staff post on that. I'm moving right to C&D if they keep leaving sloppy crit.

What if some kind of organization or singular person in effect "enchanted" posters to "hydratize" following the idea of taking one down and having multiple pop up in near areas, leading to quarantine? Perhaps they may also give off a mild or extreme cognitohazardous/memetic effect (buzzwords I know) inspiring the person seeing it to do (insert general action here).

So I thought it was a rather dumb idea but some people in offsite communities thought it was rather funny and encouraged me to go forward with it. […] So he has some fun shennanigans and goes around the office dicking with things until the last day when he finds booze in someones cubical and gets piss drunk, passes out, and the people walk in the next day to find him.

hey modern erasmus when my article has been up for all of 5 seconds i'm not sure why you're instadownvoting :/.

DrMagnus responded to that (non-staff capacity):

Probably for the same reason I did: Tone issues, common with the last versions of this.

I would suggest not posting "callout" posts on the forums as they reflect poorly on you.

In which, Jack Evereds responded:

if the document was scanned longer than a moment perhaps the reason for "tone issues" would reveal itself :/.

In any case, I cast my judgment on the initial post as a vitriolic attempt at another user for voting an article in a way the user does not favour, and their response to Magnus does not reflect them realising the problem here. I issued a staff post to make it clearer.

Jack Evereds, please refrain from calling out other users for downvoting in such an explicit manner. If you wish to ask another user why they choose to downvote, PM them (that being said, they are not guaranteed to reply. No one is mandated to explain why they vote for an article). It is more efficient, and ensures the message is reached out to them.

To do so in the manner you have done does not reflect willingness to truly understand why another downvoted your work. Rather, it seems to be an attempt at stirring up unnecessary trouble by calling out another site member for something you personally do not favour.

And this is going to be a closed staff post.

UPDATE: User edited their posts. I assume they have realised the problem at hand.